The Lost Moment

As an American liberal—and I'm proud to use the word even though the conservatives have managed to turn it into a slur—the Republicans I could vote for have been few and far between. John McCain was one of them.

While I certainly did not agree with all of his positions, McCain appeared to be committed to doing what he felt was right and honorable, the political fallout within his own party be damned. As the Republican party moved further and further rightward, and determined to oppose the Democrats on any issue, regardless of logic or consequences, McCain stood out. He worked with Democrats and opposed most of his party on campaign finance reform, normalization of relations with Vietnam, environmental and energy issues, patients' rights, and immigration. He voted against some of the Bush tax cuts. He excoriated Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as "agents of intolerance" and denounced "the politics of slander and division."

Oh Johnny, I hardly know ye.

Because he knew it was the only way to gain the 2008 nomination, McCain has moved relentlessly to the right since the 2004 election. He cozied up to those agents of intolerance, delivering the 2006 commencement address at Falwell's Liberty University. He came out against his own immigration reform bill. In a stunning reversal of his repeatedly stated position on torture, he voted against a ban on "enhanced interrogation techniques," some of which he himself endured in Vietnam. He gave up his opposition to Bush-style tax cuts and now proposes even larger cuts in the face of unprecedented budget deficits and economic upheaval.

Many had hoped that all this simply reflected what he had to do in order to gain enough support within the Republican base to gain the nomination, and that, once the nomination was secured, he would move back to the center. He would drop the mask and turn back into John McCain. But this has not happened. He has given up none of his new positions, and his campaign has been marked by the very sort of duplicitous and underhanded tactics that the Bush organization used to defeat him in 2000, the same "politics of slander and division" that he once denounced.

In recent days it has turned downright scary. Inflamed by Sarah Palin's thinly-veiled "He's not like us" theme, enraged audiences at McCain events have gotten out of control. The crowds, increasingly composed of the most vicious, least tolerant, least informed among us, are hurling insults and even threats at Barack Obama. We hear shouts of "traitor," "treason," "terrorist," even "off with his head" and "kill him"; but the candidates, McCain and Palin, say nothing.

We haven't heard "nigger" yet, but how far off can that be?

At a Wisconsin rally last Friday, a woman said something to which McCain finally reacted.

Woman: I don't trust Obama. I've read about him. He's an Arab.

McCain: No ma'am. He's a decent family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign is all about.

Now, I don't claim to know his thoughts. Maybe he'd just had enough, and his innate sense of honor and integrity required him to say something. Or maybe he felt that he had no choice but to respond because this time it wasn't just an anonymous shout from the crowd but instead was addressed directly to him, on camera. I don't know.

But, whatever his motivation was, here was a moment. It was an instant in time when at least partial redemption was possible. It was a moment when he could have shaken everything off, like a dog shaking water off its back, and become the man that we know he can be. He could have said something like this:

No ma'am. No. That is not right. Barack Obama is not an Arab. And by the way, Arabs are not our enemies. The overwhelming majority of Arabs—and Muslims everywhere—are friendly and peaceful men and women who pray to the same God you do. Our enemies are a tiny minority, religious extremists.

Barack Obama is not an Arab. He is not a Muslim. He is not a terrorist. He does not hate America. He is not your enemy; he is as patriotic as I am. He is a good and decent man who has the best interests of all Americans at heart. Barack Obama and I disagree on some issues—but we agree on many more. Your choice should be based on those issues where we disagree and on nothing else.

My friends, I have let this campaign get away from me. I truly believe that I would make the better President, but in my great desire to win this election and lead this country forward I have foolishly accepted some very bad advice. I should have known better. You have seen in my own campaign the very tactics that have been used against me in the past, and I know from my own experience how wrong they are. And in allowing my campaign to run this way I have pandered to extremists and lost the very people I most needed to win the election—the huge majority of reasonable, moderate Americans.

It stops here, my friends. It stops right now. From this moment on, my campaign will focus on the issues, and only on the issues. We will not distort the positions of my opponent, but we will highlight our differences and let you be the judge. We will be truthful about my own positions—and I will be telling you what I really think and plan, not what my campaign advisors tell me to say. It may not be what you some of you want to hear. So be it. But my campaign will be fair, honorable, and truthful, and that is something I can live with, whatever the results might be. I cannot do otherwise any longer.

Maybe if life were scripted by the writers of The West Wing, he would have said that. He certainly could have said more than he did. But he didn't.

It probably would have been too late to save his campaign, but at least he would have been able to sleep at night.

How To Win a Debate Without Really Trying

I'm seeing a lot of stuff like this from CNN:

[S]ince Biden was supposed to destroy Palin, and didn't even come close, this was a good night for the Republican.

As P.G. Wodehouse once wrote, "what frightful horse-radish."

Most of the talking heads now annoint debate winners not in terms of who actually performed better, but who performed above or below expectations. In this case, Sarah Palin didn't accidentally set the podium on fire as expected, so she won.

OK, here's my plan: I'm going to challenge Michael Phelps to a 100-meter butterfly. But first, I must tell you that I'm a terrible swimmer. I'm not sure I could finish a 100-meter race. There, now your expectations for my winning are pretty low, right? So, when I do eventually crawl out of the pool, you'll be surprised that I failed to drown.

Which will make me the winner. All I need to do is perform better than expected.

PS to Sarah: in a debate, you're really not supposed to say "I may not answer the questions...." It's a debate, the point of which is, well, that you answer the questions.

Sounds Vaguely Familiar

This from the Times rings a bell, somehow:

Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy.

I've heard this about some other administration, but I just can't put my finger on it.

A few other tidbits:

• Palin has said that polar bears are not endangered and has sued the federal government to keep them off the endangered species list because doing so would hinder oil and gas exploration. She argued that the bears are well-managed and not in danger, and that "there is not enough evidence to support a listing." But email records show that the scientists who studied this for her concluded that the bears are in danger.
  
• She fired the Wasilla city attorney after he issued a stop-work order on a home being built by a campaign supporter.
  
• She ordered city employees not to talk to the press.
  
• The Wasilla high school yearbook now "now doubles as a veritable directory of state government."
  
• Ms. Palin and her staff used personal email accounts in order to work around possible subpoenas of official records.
  

Laura Chase, Palin's mayoral campaign manager, is quoted as saying, "I’m still proud of Sarah, but she scares the bejeebers out of me."

Me too.

Just the Facts

Pretty depressing item in the Washington Post this morning.

Here are some Republican "facts": Sarah Palin said "Thanks, but no thanks" to that bridge. She fired the state house chef. She sold the state jet on eBay. She is dead-set against earmarks. Obama's tax plan raises everyone's taxes. He supports infanticide. He was referring to Palin with his pig-lipstick comment. He thinks Iran is a "tiny" threat.

We know every one of these "facts" to be untrue.

You think this is Republicans only? Not hardly. Whoever made up those Palin "facts" (her plan to cut special ed funding, the list of books she wanted to ban from the Wasilla library, and so on), shame on you. You're no better than they are.

In an article about how "untruths" become facts, the Post quotes Republican strategist John Feehery:

"The more the New York Times and The Washington Post go after Sarah Palin, the better off she is, because there's a bigger truth out there and the bigger truths are she's new, she's popular in Alaska and she is an insurgent," Feehery said. "As long as those are out there, these little facts don't really matter." [emphasis added]

The facts don't matter.

And, sadly, that is a fact. The truth doesn't seem to matter any more. A huge percentage of the American public will suck up whatever garbage is handed to it because it is too damn lazy to open a newspaper or click a mouse.

If there is a sadder comment on the state of American politics, I'm hard pressed to come up with it.