Presidential campaign 2008


by Cameron Salisbury

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s ‘emergency’ $700 billion bailout was authorized in record time by both houses of Congress despite the opposition of an estimated 80% of U.S. taxpayers, each of whom seems to have contacted his/her legislators more than once. For days, Congress was flooded with emails and calls with one message: No Wall Street bail out! When the bail out was fully funded, with lightning speed but no hearings, logical justification or concrete plan, it became clearer than ever that the opinions, wishes, demands of the electorate are scarcely worth the cost of the ballots they cast.

Although the immediate cause of the current economic meltdown was the deregulation of Wall Street, banks and the financial services industry, this was far from the first time that citizens have been sold out by elected representatives doing the bidding of Big Business. In fact, dismantling the regulatory/consumer safety net and throwing the taxpayer under the bus has become a way of life in Washington.

We prefer safe drugs. Instead, we get FDA approval of drugs that sicken and kill us. When the body count reaches a boundary of tolerance, they are withdrawn until Big Pharma’s lobbyists can wrangle them back on the market. This game earns billions for Big Pharma and is worth every calculated penny they pay lawmakers and their victims.

We prefer safe and fuel efficient vehicles. Instead, we get what the auto makers decide to serve up, and that is neither notably safe nor fuel efficient. Detroit’s auto industry is now insisting that they are entitled to their share of the buy out billions. They were part owners of Congress long before the current economic crisis, so what they want now is simple payback.

We prefer a sane and reasonable energy policy. Instead, we are held hostage by an unregulated energy sector that rewards run-amok speculation. In 2008, speculators single handedly raised the price of oil to the extent that the economy threatened to grind to a halt. After the price of food, consumer goods, and transportation skyrocketed, after we were left with a lowered standard of living and Congress belatedly threatened action, they crawled back into their holes and oil prices returned to a semblance of normal. Today, with the tacit approval of a complicit Congress and in conjunction with the rest of the economic crisis, the damage done by Big Oil’s engineered bubble appears irreversible.

We prefer an ethical, honest government that understands the need to protect the economy, the environment and citizens with responsible regulation. Instead, we get the likes of Henry Paulson and Nancy Pelosi, so heavily subsidized by their corporate sponsors that they lose sight of public accountability and, I suspect, their own consciences.

How else to explain an AIG? Even in the Land of Bail Out Oz, these delinquents are in a class by themselves, done in by a highly lucrative and utterly irresponsible insurance swindle called credit default swaps. There is no rational justification for rewarding this 21st century casino, and the gamblers – whom they prefer to call ‘investors’ - who kept it in business, with one cent. And yet, their heavy lobbying has paid off, once again, to the tune of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars even as they continue to throw expensive parties and, like the rest of the bail out jackpot winners, hand billions in bonuses to their amoral managers - whom they prefer to call ‘Wall Street elites’ – who are at the root of the turmoil. It would make as much sense to throw a few billion at Starbucks and Caesars Palace.

Will anything change with a new administration? We have clues. President-elect Obama was among the first to say the bail out was needed immediately, no questions asked, no second thoughts about disregarding the wishes of the vast majority of Americans. If he had any concerns about the outsized, poorly reasoned giveaway to the reckless greedy, or to the concept of a Wall Street bail out as absurd as it was intellectually dishonest, he never showed it.

And this episode wasn’t the first clue. As others have documented, President-elect Obama’s voting record has been enough to give most supporters pause, as were his speeches at various high dollar fundraisers during the campaign. The myth that the Obama campaign was financed by legions of individual $10 donations is belied by his campaign disclosure statements (www.opensecrets.org).

Obama’s first, immediate, appointment was Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff. Emanuel is a temperamentally volatile man who never met a war in the Middle East that he didn’t want the U.S. to finance and then star in, and he never met a free trade agreement that he didn’t love. Does he sound like a first round draft pick in a ‘change’ administration? Or does he sound more like a plant preordained by big donors to further their own agendas?

It seems likely that Barack Obama is the best person for the presidency that we could have elected. He is a reasoning, intelligent man of goodwill, a difference of light years from the mean-spirited, short-sighted, unapologetic corporate hustler that he replaces.

But it is naïve to think that he is not caught in the Washington money game or that whatever remains of his ideals, after four years in the Senate and a presidential race, are not prone to extinction by the groupthink that inhabits the East Coast.

Even with Barack Obama as the president elect, our democracy remains fragile, its future uncertain. Here are a few is ideas on how we might restore it.

First, everybody knows that private money should get out of politics. Barring that, politics should get out of Washington.

So, first, close Washington down. Zip it up and return it to the Indians or give it to the Smithsonian for a cautionary display of how not to do democracy.

Elected representatives have shown themselves spectacularly incapable of managing the public trust when they flock together. Grouped, away from the voters who sent them, they make easy prey for corporate predators dispensing lots of money. Events repeatedly show that it is nearly impossible for most of them to rouse their brain cells to independent activity in a crowd. We need to get them out of their noxious geographic comfort zone and send them home.

Given the current economic crisis, we should expect lawmakers to willingly relinquish their cushy, expensive Washington pads and establish primary offices in their home states, among their friends, neighbors and voters. They could thereby patriotically save the taxpayers at least part of the money they gave away to Henry Paulson. They would have an allowance for staff, offices and limited travel. All meetings would be conducted by telecommunication, like it’s the 21st century.

Further, lawmakers will be reminded daily, up close and in person, of the wishes of those who brought them. There won’t be another misbegotten, taxpayer-financed, Wall Street bailout when directives are delivered by the irate face to face and in the same time zone.

Although this plan will not keep lobbyist entirely at bay, it should make their lives considerably more difficult, a big plus.

Next, the talking heads residing in the New York-Washington corridor should be banned from the air waves. They talk only to each other, being elites and all, and not one of them has had an independent or creative thought in years. We don’t need any more pundits from Yale, Columbia or NYU; we don’t need Brian, Katie or Charlie; we don’t need anyone else from an East Coast think tank giving us their pompous, arrogant version of reality.

There is a continent of alternatives. Let’s get an assessment of the options to Paulson’s opinions from, say, an economist at the University of Missouri; an ungarbled analysis of the Russia-S. Ossetia situation from someone without a vested interest in getting it wrong, maybe a political analyst from the University of Idaho; let’s find people who understand the catastrophe of a toxic ruling class and who won’t lose their jobs for telling the truth right out loud. Because we’ve had enough of the smug politics of condescension.

Getting our news from the western side of the Alleghenies and keeping our elected lawmakers home are actions that could go far toward saving our democracy.

If the United States can elect an Obama, it can do anything.

by Cameron Salisbury

Without a doubt, you are two very nice guys.  Anyone would like to have you for friends, have you over for dinner, go to your parties, sit down with you and discuss current events. Unfortunately, you are not running for best friend.  So STOP IT! Now! Unless your campaign develops a harder edge, and you acquire weapons for dealing with your street tough opponents other than your reasoned civility, your victory may be another missed Democratic opportunity.

 

Remember 2000? That was the election that Gore lost when a majority right wing Supreme Court, in a fit of dementia, said so.  It was a breathtaking subversion of democracy that will live in infamy, but Gore was such a nice guy that he never raised his voice against the decision. When Karl Rove flew Brooks Brothers thugs into Tallahassee to intimidate election workers, Gore maintained his fastidious silence and wouldn’t let his campaign spokesmen comment either.  Ditto when Jim Baker painted the Democrats as anti-American when they tried to enforce federal election laws regarding absentee ballots. Al Gore, in all his niceness, effectively sold out the majority of voters and the nation. If Gore had not rolled over at every step in the process, the history of the early 21st century might read differently.  Our future as a nation might be different, too.  But, then, he was a nice guy.

 

And then there was John Kerry and the election of 2004.  As Kerry was telling his campaign workers that they were not to comment on the sorry Bush record of using daddy’s influence to evade military service during the VietNam war, Republican goons were putting together the swift boat ad questioning Kerry’s patriotism and calling a real hero, a liar.  Kerry, a nice guy to the core, could never bring himself to call a well dressed bully a thug.  He, too, lost the election despite being smarter, better prepared, and less beholden to the forces of evil, also known as the oil companies and their henchmen, like Dick Cheney.

 

It’s been very nice of Barack and Joe to remind voters of their respect and admiration for McCain, a great American, they say.  But there has been a notable lack of bonhomie coming from the other side. So do us a favor, guys, and STOP IT!  McCain is a great many things that should inspire contempt rather than glowing praise and there is evidence that his health is more marginal than he wants us to believe. So no more praise, please. Talk to your audience about the Republican candidates in terms that matter.

 

While it makes pragmatic sense to steer clear of Bristol Palin’s pregnancy, as well as her mother’s decision to put the hapless girl in the spotlight as a sacrifice to her own ambition, it makes less sense to tell your staff that anyone who alludes to Palin’s self absorbed agenda will be fired.  In fact, I think I hear the muted laughter of high-fiving Republicans right now.  We understand that Barack was born to an 18 year old who was probably unmarried, but you don’t call ‘Just Say No’  a sex education policy.  Palin is a walking, talking neon sign for Republican fuzz and hypocrisy, yet your campaign treats her like fragile glass.  STOP IT!  She’s a politician! Even without mentioning Palin’s family life, your campaign should be capable of finding a way to discredit her.  There are sooooo many issues to choose from.

 

And another thing.  In attacking your record and in representing their own, Palin and McCain aren’t engaged in ‘misrepresentation’, ‘misstatements,’ ‘exaggeration’ or any of the other media fuzz designed to hide the truth, and which, so far, you are condoning with your silence.  So STOP IT.  They are liars as everyone paying attention knows.  So you can use the word.  L-i-a-r-s.  Try saying it out loud.  According to media reports they are planning swiftboat ads against you, so you need to step up both your passion and your vocabulary.

 

The problem is that neither Barack nor Joe are as implacably, fanatically, angry as their opponents, and we’re fast reaching a point where the high road will have to be option and not a calling.  But who is there to take on the rabid Republicans?  Hillary refuses to engage Palin, choosing instead to concentrate her remarks on both members of the ticket.  Joe “I-don’t-do-zingers” Biden is saying the right things in his own colorless way, apparently relying on his big smile and affability to get him to the vice-president’s mansion. Barack is being his aloof, cerebral self, discussing the issues without fire or passion, occasionally sounding as though he was reading from a boring script.  

 

At the moment, no one is galvanizing the Democrats even though there is a popular, smart, political genius pacing the sidelines, camera-ready, media savvy and anxious to take on the lies, distortions and slick Republican nonsense, as well as the media, and with quotable flair.  Bill Clinton could be the Democrats best friend in this election and he does do zingers, so, Barack and Joe, why are you keeping him leashed to the sidelines ala Gore and Kerry?  STOP IT!  Put him to work today! Let Bill Clinton put McCain/ Palin into the sound bites that neither of you are comfortable with.

 

What is the difference between a pit bull and a Democratic candidate?  One is made of papier-mâché.  You choose.

 

 

by Cameron Salisbury

 

I’m sick to death of the Hillary bashing so I can imagine how her supporters feel.

 

The blatant sexism, poor judgment and self satisfied insolence of media commentators from both the left and the right, TV and radio, is matched only by the blatant sexism, poor judgment and self satisfied insolence of the progressive blogosphere. With two viable presidential candidates who enjoy broad national support, progressives should be thanking providence. Instead, we’ve gone out of our way to throw away all claim to ethical or intellectual high ground.

 

The 2008 Hillary bashing sounds a lot like the 2000 Gore bashing, except that Gore’s trouble came largely from the terminally myopic arrogance of the national press in league with the far right. Hillary, on the other hand has to deal with those and everyone else, too, including us. 

 

Regardless of our own personal candidate of choice, we could react generously and applaud her candidacy, or, if we can’t bring ourselves that far, to give  reasons for our disengagement. Instead, the progressive blogosphere, much like the mainstream media, is full of snide, rationale-free invective, which is also known as misogyny. 

 

Despite the fact that many of us think she has lost her way on some issues, she deserves respect for her sound record of liberal leadership and for being an intrepid trail blazer for women. She has kept the faith with us better, on most days, than we have with her.  Her voting record is among the most liberal in Washington, far more liberal than Edward Kennedy’s (http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm.) 

 

 Much has been made of Hillary’s so-called name calling of her opponent, another example of what for her is a treacherously uneven playing field. Every one of her comments about Obama has been fact-based.  She has said nothing that comes close to the mindless venom that has been directed at her. 

 

To prove that there are female misogynists, a woman at a McCain rally called Hillary a bitch.  To show that he was on her side as a misogynist, Senator McCain tittered in apparent agreement, although you probably can’t expect much from a man who calls his wife far worse in public.

  

Hillary didn’t deserve to be called a monster by an Obama campaign aid. 

  

She didn’t deserve to be compared to Tonya Harding by an apparently deranged questioner at a Democratic rally.

  

She also didn’t deserve her remarkable array of false friends. She has been gratuitously and  publicly betrayed by Ted Kennedy and Bill Richardson, as well as by NARAL for whom she’s has been stalwart.  It’s hard to imagine any competent, qualified and viable male candidate getting the same treatment from either gender. 

  

Recently, when giving reasons for ignoring the pundits who  have been calling for her withdrawal since February, she mentioned campaigns that went into June including her husband’s and Bobby Kennedy’s race that ended in his assassination.  The mention of the word ‘assassination’ was certainly ill-advised and she apologized immediately, but that wasn’t good enough because no one else in history has ever said anything they instantly regretted.

  

Dunderheads in both the media and in the blogosphere have said that she really meant that Obama should be assassinated.  Where do these people come from?   Obama brushed it off as did Bobby Kennedy, Jr.  Even conservative  NY Times columnist David Brooks said that the reaction to her statement has been overblown and small minded.  David Brooks, for godsakes!

  

No one in the media or among progressives seems to consider the favor Hillary has done Obama just by staying in the race.  Had she allowed herself to be railroaded out of the campaign by the mindless hatred that came from all sides, we would never have learned so much about Obama.

  

In January, Hillary was the media’s clear favorite with lots of campaign financing, nearly 100% name recognition, and  a double digit lead in the polls. The election was hers to lose, they said. 

   

By February, in what surely must be one of the fastest and most ill-considered u-turns in pundit history, the same talking heads had begun saying that she should abandon the race - for the good of the party, of course. 

  

Lucky for Obama, she’s bright enough to recognize bad advice when she hears it.

    

For many people, Obama is an acquired taste. To know him is often to like him but how would that have happened if he was alone in the field and talkng to himself?  As the race has gone on, the polls have shown increasing numbers of people who like his manner, like what he says, and who plan to vote for him.  

  

They were converted by time, the time to learn about him, time that was given to them by a campaign that was not foreshortened by a  media stampede.

 

But Hillary has also done the rest of us a favor by refusing to abandon the race.

 

By staying the course, she has involved the entire country in the election process, a novelty in the day when winners can and have been announced before the polls close. She’s made voters feel as though they mattered and that politics had a place for them –at the ballot box. 

 

I wish I wasn’t the only one saying,  “Thanks, Hillary.”